Latest Topics

While it can be said that TV has slowly progressed to tight, more concentrated storylines in the past couple of decades, I’ve noticed a dramatic increase in the uses of drama and suspense with the recent surge of programs that are written for an audience that is expected to digest them all in one sitting. One big troupe characteristic in these binge shows is the steady, unrelenting increase in stakes, giving little time to breath and let tension or peace linger. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Can made-for-streaming shows still be considered TV, or are they moving towards more extended movies?

I like this idea, but I have to say that I am a little worried about how you are going to prove any of these ideas. For example, how will you tangibly prove that binge watching is either bad or good? By what metric will you judge the circumstances? These are factors that need to be considered... – agramugl1 year ago0

Agree with agramugl that proving whether or not binge watching is good or bad will be challenging at best, however perhaps this can be compared to potential effects it may have on the way people watch films? Most binge-worthy TV shows are more or less extended films, as you said, particularly with their high production values. Perhaps this could be likened to how a lot of drama/suspense/action films nowadays have a run time of around or over 120 minutes - any less, don't we feel they're not giving us enough? Would anyone bother going to the cinema to watch a short mediocre film, when they can watch something epic on Netflix? – Sonia Charlotta Reini1 year ago1

Awesome article! Articulated a problem that’s been plaguing writing programs for year. I especially like the point of teachers not urging one way or the other, not forcing students to choose between academic acclaim or popular success. Honestly, the two aren’t always mutually exclusive. Look at works like “Catcher on the Rye”, “The Great Gatsby”, and “The Lord of the Rings”. All technically genre books intended for entertainment, all enjoyed commercial success, and yet all rich in intellectual rich. They leave something for the scholar and the civilian, proving that being literary and genre aren’t always separate entities.

I watched this show about a year ago in one binge sitting, going back to my favorite episodes once and awhile ever since. It’s so stylized in the way it approaches discussing themes like life, death, and a afterlife based on a moral system. Such a great show. Going back and thinking on it, yeah, there are a lot of humanistic ideas. Great article! Thinking further on Decim’s relationship with humanism, what can be said about his fellow arbiters? Decim’s supervisor, Nora, spends the entirety of the series guiding Decim and protecting his true nature from her boss-Oculus. Most of her peers either are hesitant or outright disapprove of Decim’s human nature, and Oculus’s words in the finale have a haunting ring to them when he recounts the rules, stating that arbiters possessing human emotion will be the end of them. Yes, we see Decim perform his duties twice, perhaps better off with emotion. But we never see the prolonged effect. That put up against Oculus’s last words leaves the impression that we’re never given a real conclusion to the show’s underlying conflict. Seeing as arbiters hold a God-like occupation, even without perfect omniscience, it begs the question; is a humanistic approach the best way to fair judgement? Should our Gods think and feel like we do?